To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

Troske wins contest
Julie Weatherill presents Dana Troske with the Mr. Northern trophy.
Contestants were judged in different areas including favorite occupa-tion,
best body and best buns. The Mr. Northern Contest was held in
conjunction with Spring Fling on Tuesday, April 24. For more photos
turn to page 10. (Photo by Cletus Thomas)
'EXPONENT Issue 17, Vol. 83, May 3, 1984
Non-Profit Org.
U.S. Postage
PAID
Aberdeen, S.D. 57401
Permit No. 77
Ad Hoc makes recommendations
Exponent is censorship free Faculty contract
negotiations, page
2.
Need for refresher
courses, and cause
of campus apathy
contemplated,
page 4.
Premiere perfor-mance
of "Forest
Spring," page 6.
How activity ticket
dollars are spent,
page 6.
Special gradua-tion
and summer
centerfold insert
featuring Logan,
pages I-IV.
Final exam
schedule, page 7.
Northern Lights
turned on again,
page 8.
Now
Help for test anxi-ety
sufferers, page
9.
Spring Fling,
page 10.
Die-hard Lady
Wolves and other
ports, page 11.
The members of the ad-hoc commit-tee,
which was created to inform the
president on the student publications
activities, have completed their report.
Footnotes have been deleted. The
report reads as follows:
The Ad Hoc Committee on the Ex-ponent
has completed its examination
of the recent controversy involving the
paper. We interviewed members of the
student association, the student
media, the media board and its task
force, and the larger campus com-munity.
We found broad consensus.
Each person with whom we spoke
urges us to formulate recommenda-tions
tht would protect and strengthen
the Exponent. All recognized the
value of an inquiring, exigent student
press.
Freedoms
The Supreme Court of the United
States has held that, at a minimum,
students at public institutions should
not fear retribution stemming from
disapproval of the content of their
paper. Practical realities are important
here; freedoms of speech may not be
stifled by subtle actions. The Eighth
Circuit Court of Appeals, whose
jurisdictional territory includes South
Dakota, recently identified three
elements to be used to assess the con-stitutionality
of public university ac-tions
indirectly affecting the student
press. In Stanley v. Magrath, The cir-cuit
court reasoned that to prevail on a
First Amendment claim student editors
would have to show that the public
university's action was adverse and
that it was substantially motivated by
the content of the newspaper. Even
were that threshhold crossed, a public
university could withstand the First
Amendment challenge by proving by a
preponderance of evidence that it
would have taken the same action
anyway for a separate and legitimate
reason. After applying those tests, the
circuit court held that the University of
Minnesota infringed the First Amend-ment
rights of the editors of the Min-nesota
Daily, the student paper on
the Twin Cities campus of the Universi-ty
of Minnesota.
Stanley arose when the Regents of
the University of Minnesota, in
response to public clamor against a
"humorous" issue of the Minnesota
Daily, changed the funding arrange-ments
for the paper. The university
allowed students who did not wish to
support the Daily to claim a two-dollar
refund for that part of their student ser-vice
fees that would have been allo-cated
to the paper. At the same time,
fees supporing the publication were
raised 11.6%. The court of appeals
saw no evidence that the increase in
fees was intended to replace revenue
lost through refunds. Despite losses
due to refunds the amount of money
received by the Daily after the increase
rose modestly. The court of appeals
found that, notwithstanding the fact
that funding levels improved, the
university's action had an adverse im-pact
upon the student press. It based
its findings upon two distinct factors. It
concluded that the Daily suffered an
injury in fact because of the regents'
action; measurable loss in funding oc-curred
because of refundable fees. It
also relied upon testimony by student
editors that on several occasions they
had altered the content of the paper for
fear of further reprisals by the universi-ty.
The court then concluded that the
university's action had, as its natural
consequence, a chilling effect upon
the student press. This it deemed
clearly adverse. The court had ample
evidence that the university acted in
response to public criticism of the con-tent
of the paper. The district court
found, however, that the university
had acted from solicitude for those
students who felt compelled to fund a
paper with which they disagreed. The
court of appeals assumed, without
deciding, that such an objective would
be permissible. It determine, however,
that the university had not acted from
such a motive. The university's action
had only affected the one campus
whose paper had caused the contro-versy.
Other campuses having student
papers remained unaffected. The court
reasoned that if the action respecting
Daily's funding had truly been based
upon principle, the university would
have taken similar action on all cam-puses.
The court concluded that the
university's action was adverse, that it
was motivated by disapproval of the
contents of the paper, and that it
would not have been taken but for the
disapproval of the paper. On that
basis, the circuit court instructed the
(continued on page 3)

Troske wins contest
Julie Weatherill presents Dana Troske with the Mr. Northern trophy.
Contestants were judged in different areas including favorite occupa-tion,
best body and best buns. The Mr. Northern Contest was held in
conjunction with Spring Fling on Tuesday, April 24. For more photos
turn to page 10. (Photo by Cletus Thomas)
'EXPONENT Issue 17, Vol. 83, May 3, 1984
Non-Profit Org.
U.S. Postage
PAID
Aberdeen, S.D. 57401
Permit No. 77
Ad Hoc makes recommendations
Exponent is censorship free Faculty contract
negotiations, page
2.
Need for refresher
courses, and cause
of campus apathy
contemplated,
page 4.
Premiere perfor-mance
of "Forest
Spring," page 6.
How activity ticket
dollars are spent,
page 6.
Special gradua-tion
and summer
centerfold insert
featuring Logan,
pages I-IV.
Final exam
schedule, page 7.
Northern Lights
turned on again,
page 8.
Now
Help for test anxi-ety
sufferers, page
9.
Spring Fling,
page 10.
Die-hard Lady
Wolves and other
ports, page 11.
The members of the ad-hoc commit-tee,
which was created to inform the
president on the student publications
activities, have completed their report.
Footnotes have been deleted. The
report reads as follows:
The Ad Hoc Committee on the Ex-ponent
has completed its examination
of the recent controversy involving the
paper. We interviewed members of the
student association, the student
media, the media board and its task
force, and the larger campus com-munity.
We found broad consensus.
Each person with whom we spoke
urges us to formulate recommenda-tions
tht would protect and strengthen
the Exponent. All recognized the
value of an inquiring, exigent student
press.
Freedoms
The Supreme Court of the United
States has held that, at a minimum,
students at public institutions should
not fear retribution stemming from
disapproval of the content of their
paper. Practical realities are important
here; freedoms of speech may not be
stifled by subtle actions. The Eighth
Circuit Court of Appeals, whose
jurisdictional territory includes South
Dakota, recently identified three
elements to be used to assess the con-stitutionality
of public university ac-tions
indirectly affecting the student
press. In Stanley v. Magrath, The cir-cuit
court reasoned that to prevail on a
First Amendment claim student editors
would have to show that the public
university's action was adverse and
that it was substantially motivated by
the content of the newspaper. Even
were that threshhold crossed, a public
university could withstand the First
Amendment challenge by proving by a
preponderance of evidence that it
would have taken the same action
anyway for a separate and legitimate
reason. After applying those tests, the
circuit court held that the University of
Minnesota infringed the First Amend-ment
rights of the editors of the Min-nesota
Daily, the student paper on
the Twin Cities campus of the Universi-ty
of Minnesota.
Stanley arose when the Regents of
the University of Minnesota, in
response to public clamor against a
"humorous" issue of the Minnesota
Daily, changed the funding arrange-ments
for the paper. The university
allowed students who did not wish to
support the Daily to claim a two-dollar
refund for that part of their student ser-vice
fees that would have been allo-cated
to the paper. At the same time,
fees supporing the publication were
raised 11.6%. The court of appeals
saw no evidence that the increase in
fees was intended to replace revenue
lost through refunds. Despite losses
due to refunds the amount of money
received by the Daily after the increase
rose modestly. The court of appeals
found that, notwithstanding the fact
that funding levels improved, the
university's action had an adverse im-pact
upon the student press. It based
its findings upon two distinct factors. It
concluded that the Daily suffered an
injury in fact because of the regents'
action; measurable loss in funding oc-curred
because of refundable fees. It
also relied upon testimony by student
editors that on several occasions they
had altered the content of the paper for
fear of further reprisals by the universi-ty.
The court then concluded that the
university's action had, as its natural
consequence, a chilling effect upon
the student press. This it deemed
clearly adverse. The court had ample
evidence that the university acted in
response to public criticism of the con-tent
of the paper. The district court
found, however, that the university
had acted from solicitude for those
students who felt compelled to fund a
paper with which they disagreed. The
court of appeals assumed, without
deciding, that such an objective would
be permissible. It determine, however,
that the university had not acted from
such a motive. The university's action
had only affected the one campus
whose paper had caused the contro-versy.
Other campuses having student
papers remained unaffected. The court
reasoned that if the action respecting
Daily's funding had truly been based
upon principle, the university would
have taken similar action on all cam-puses.
The court concluded that the
university's action was adverse, that it
was motivated by disapproval of the
contents of the paper, and that it
would not have been taken but for the
disapproval of the paper. On that
basis, the circuit court instructed the
(continued on page 3)